Re: BZR repository upgrade re-proposal.

tis 2012-09-04 klockan 11:41 +1200 skrev Amos Jeffries:

> > There is also an alternative layout tree at /bzr/squid3-new-2a/ which
> > flattens the tree to
> >
> > ../
> > trunk
> > 3.0
> > 3.1
> > 3.2
> >
> > getting rid of the CVS references and other legacy.
>
> Does this obsolete the CVS mirror completely? or do you mean that is
> all pushed into the mirror sub-directories system instead of the bzr
> repo?

I did not mirror the CVS branches into squid3-new-2a. But trunk have
full history as before. It is easy to copy over any additional branches
if needed and the old repository will still be available to "resurrect"
stuff from, only locked to prevent any accidental commits.

> What do you mean by "other legacy"?

There is a bit of cruft that have been collecting in branches/

There likely also is some other active branches we want to keep like
"mswin". The new layout is only a suggestion picking the most obvious
main branches.

> Okay. As long as we have a scheduled time and process how-to
> distributed I don't see any problems there.

Agreed. Upgrading using a local shared repository is fairly quick (some
minutes at most).

> Do we have administrative time to see this through before the 15th
> Sept? I will be wanting to branch 3.3 by the end of this month and it
> would make sense to deal with less branches in the migration.

The actual switch is only two mv commands.

If there is any persistent local bzr repositories in the build farm or
anywhere else then those need to be verified 2a format. But I don't
think we have any of those do we?

Add a couple of symlinks and we can support both branches/ and the
proposed flattened layout at the same time, minimizing the number of
scripts and branch URLs that need updating. We can then successively
phase out the branches/ URLs when we see fit.

Regards
Henrik
Received on Tue Sep 04 2012 - 00:25:17 MDT